| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |
| Date: | 2014-10-29 19:32:35 |
| Message-ID: | 545140D3.4030108@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 29/10/14 20:00, Robert Haas wrote:
> After reviewing all of those possibilities with the sort of laser-like
> focus the situation demands, I'm inclined to endorse Alvaro's proposal
> to rename the existing dsm_keep_mapping() function to
> dsm_pin_mapping() and the existing dsm_keep_segment() function to
> dsm_pin_segment(). Then, I will add the new function as
> dsm_unpin_mapping(). So:
>
> 1. Does anyone strongly object to that course of action?
>
Nah, it sounds reasonable.
> 2. Does anyone wish to argue for or against back-patching the name
> changes to 9.4? My feeling is that we may as well, because either
> nobody's using this yet, in which case back-patching it won't break
> anything, or somebody is, in which case we'll cause less pain by
> breaking it before release than a year on. But I don't care that much
> either way, so I'll defer if others disagree.
>
+1
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-10-29 19:33:00 | Re: WIP: Access method extendability |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-29 19:31:50 | Re: Directory/File Access Permissions for COPY and Generic File Access Functions |